By Brayden Yee
On June 7th, San Francisco District Attorney Chesa Boudin was successfully recalled by San Francisco voters. The vote to unseat Boudin has since been used to push the argument against the effectiveness of progressive criminal justice reforms, however there is much more to the special election than what appears on the surface.
For starters, it is important to clarify that Boudin’s recall election did not put 2 candidates against one another, which may indicate that the vote reflected the view of the candidate instead of their policies. Additionally, the election had relatively low turnout, making it risky to draw big conclusions when only a small portion of eligible voters actually voted.
However, Boudin’s recall can indicate whether or not running as an “insider” or “outsider” affects the public's view of a prosecutor. Like Larry Krasner, the District Attorney of Philadelphia, Boudin ran as a progressive outsider, being against the system that was in place. There have also been progressive candidates who ran as an insider, such as Eric Gonzalez, the District Attorney of Brooklyn who had been a prosecutor since he graduated from law school.
It is worth wondering whether or not someone’s status as an insider or outsider can not only affect how the media portrays them, but also how it affects their political views. Would an insider typically be more conservative or progressive? Are outsiders typically painted more poorly by the media because they are easier targets, or because they make bad decisions that insiders would usually not make? It is important to ask these questions when coming to a conclusion on what Boudin’s recall truly means, since there is very little data to indicate a clear answer.
But Boudin’s recall may answer a different question. Is San Francisco tired of ultra-progressivism? The answer seems to be yes. Boudin’s recall follows the recall of three members of the San Francisco Board of Education who tried to rename 44 school buildings instead of focusing on ensuring schools were properly funded throughout the pandemic. Boudin’s progressive criminal justice reforms were followed by spikes in burglary and larceny. Those who supported the recall linked the two together, fearing that Boudin’s ultra-progressive approach to policing was too far, even for the progressive city.
Boudin’s recall has been used to attempt to indicate that progressive measures to reform the criminal justice system in the United States are not popular to the general public. This claim however merely lies on the surface of a subject we truly do not understand. Boudin’s recall may appear to indicate that, as San Francisco is one of the most progressive cities in the country, if a progressive can’t win there, how can they expect to win in the future? However, the recall can also be the first step to understanding how running as an insider or outsider can affect how a candidate is viewed.
Comments